My buddy, whose an engineer by trade and an accomplished amateur photog by night, says that photography is not art. I didn't want to start in with him. I showed him this photo and asked him what he thought. I'll leave his response up to you. Here is some background info about the picture. http://goo.gl/o5spm

My buddy, whose an engineer by trade and an accomplished amateur photog by night, says that photography is not art. I didn't want to start in with him. I showed him this photo and asked him what he thought. I'll leave his response up to you. Here is some background info about the picture. http://goo.gl/o5spm

This is art, the value of it may differ from one person to another, but its art alright. It would be artistic if there was no code into it, but there is and it was an intentional code by the artist. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

No need for Leonardo in this one Rob..., that's an easy one, even for cartoon admirers! Regards, Theodoros.

Guess cartoon admirers are streets ahead of me, then, enjoying a sixth sense of which I know nothing. The only possible thing I can imagine about twa dugs is that one of them may or may not be on heat, a question which appears to be puzzling both of them. I know that where there are two of them, and one is blind or otherwise disabled or infirm, the other will help it across the street or along the pavement by giving it a lift; other than that, I suspect that they inhabit a world of their own.

Old Lennie would still make a good spiritual guide - for me, if not the dugs.

Guess cartoon admirers are streets ahead of me, then, enjoying a sixth sense of which I know nothing. The only possible thing I can imagine about twa dugs is that one of them may or may not be on heat, a question which appears to be puzzling both of them. I know that where there are two of them, and one is blind or otherwise disabled or infirm, the other will help it across the street or along the pavement by giving it a lift; other than that, I suspect that they inhabit a world of their own.

Old Lennie would still make a good spiritual guide - for me, if not the dugs.

Rob C

The point is not what the dogs are doing, or what they will do next.., it's rather what the photograph does or doesn't. Regards, Theodoros.

I thought of adding this into the conversation just to make it more interesting, it's not PS, it's an old (26 years) 35mm negative.... Regards, Theodoros.

Very much more interesting; I like that kind of thing these days.

There was a time some years ago when the BJP used to publish 'student' images and many of them were, as far as I could see, the first or second wind-on exposures to get the film far enough onto the spool to be safe.

But since digital, stuff in that genre is usually intentional and thus worthy of a second look if only because it's a conscious effort to achieve something.

There was a time some years ago when the BJP used to publish 'student' images and many of them were, as far as I could see, the first or second wind-on exposures to get the film far enough onto the spool to be safe.

But since digital, stuff in that genre is usually intentional and thus worthy of a second look if only because it's a conscious effort to achieve something.

Ciao -

Rob C

This is no multiple exposure Rob. Nor it is an accident... Regards, Theodoros.

I used to think Photography was not art... Until I became a photographer. I think unless you really analyze photographs (and any other work of art) and take in their meaning and all the elements that make them up, you will not see the value. Many people own cameras, they have a different experience with photographs than we do.

As with many things that are a result of some visual skills married with ideas, they may or may not be art and they may, if they are art, be good art or bad art.

The problem is that a tendency exists to classify everything of a type as either art or not art when in fact, it may actually depend upon the purpose for which it, the product, had been made.

Someone makes a print for a classroom wall as an example of how a particular plant looks in its natural environment. Is that art? Another time, that same picture is placed within an exhibition. Is it then art? Does the place where it's being shown create the art, if it exists at all?

The volume of hot air that we have collectively blown here on this topic over the years makes further comment pointless.

I think it all depends on the eye of the observer, I've found sometimes in my local galleries work that for most people can be horrendous and classified as nothing out of the ordinary, some times even as junk, but still placed in there as art, so I guess this is one of those subjects where there is no correct answer and can be discussed for ages with good points on either side of the equation.

This world is filled with people with different perspectives about everything, some may have the same perspective or opinion about something, and some may not. So while some may find this one as art, some artistic, some others may not even like it. But hey, that's part of the adventure of being alive

I think it all depends on the eye of the observer, I've found sometimes in my local galleries work that for most people can be horrendous and classified as nothing out of the ordinary, some times even as junk, but still placed in there as art, so I guess this is one of those subjects where there is no correct answer and can be discussed for ages with good points on either side of the equation.

This world is filled with people with different perspectives about everything, some may have the same perspective or opinion about something, and some may not. So while some may find this one as art, some artistic, some others may not even like it. But hey, that's part of the adventure of being alive

Art is not a "democratical action", it's rather an "elitistic" one..., this simply means that is not a matter of majority or minority acceptance, it's rather a kind of mind acceptance. Suddenly ...this applies to minorities only (through history), but it's the economical system we live that determines its value, not the ones that appreciate it..., yet it's the only possible way for a "real life". Regards, Theodoros.

Is it art? Well that is such a subjective question rarely ever answered satisfactorily (to me) in the photography world. I once saw this on a photographers website...his quote was..."it is a fine art photograph because it sings". Sings? Well that's not terribly helpful is it...and just what exactly does that mean? Does it soar nimbly like the sublime Queen of the Night aria from Mozart's "The Magic Flute", or is it more like a croaking recitative from a fat toothy mountain troll from an imaginary opera by Edvard Grieg. I suppose that you might have to be a musician to really know. (I happened to have a degree in Applied Music so it comes a little easier to me)

In my years living in New York City, I've been fortunate to be aquainted with a number of people in the upper levels of the fine art world (Gagosian etc.) - both gallerists, curators, and artists...my wife as well is an artist who studied painting at Bennington College. The standard maxim is..."it IS art...if you intended to make art". I've always found this useful.

Once you've settled on the above (or not) - then there is the question of whether others consider your work art...and that is an entirely subjective world which may provide answers (or not)...there will always be as many opinions as there are...well...songs.

(btw I really like the image a lot...I remember sitting at a long dinner one night years ago next to William Wegman and we talked and talked about his work...and his work is considered by a lot of people as...well you know)